Posted
by
CmdrTaco
on Saturday March 15, 2008 @05:35PM
from the stuff-to-read-if-you're-insane dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Recommended reading for all interested in the RIAA's litigation war against p2p file sharing is the amended class action complaint just filed in Oregon in Andersen v. Atlantic. This landmark 109-page document (pdf) tells both the general story of the RIAA's campaign against ordinary folks, and the specific story of its harassment of Tanya Andersen, and even of her young daughter. The complaint includes federal and state RICO claims, as well as other legal theories, and alleges that "The world's four major recording studios had devised an illegal enterprise intent on maintaining their virtually complete monopoly over the distribution of recorded music." The point has been made by one commentator that the RIAA won't be able to weasel its out of this one by simply withdrawing it; this one, they will have to answer for. If the relief requested in the complaint is granted, the RIAA's entire campaign will be shut down for good."

Are their new laws making it a criminal offense to even think about IP violations? Do we have federal IP cops going door to door to inspect everyone's computer that has internet access? Do we have them stopping people on the street to look at MP3 players? Do we have mandatory 'restricted access clients' installed on our PCs that have a internet connection to monitor our traffic PRE-encrypted and our files?

Yes, it CAN get worse. ( and will if we don't get this thing derailed in time )

We don't have all these things.. i agree... but we do have people ordered by courts to pay in excess of $200,000 as fine for music sharing.. It was difficult for me to digest that thing.. I thing I may leave the planet when all those things you are saying start happening.. seriously.

Yes, it CAN get worse. ( and will if we don't get this thing derailed in time )

A few things need to happen:

Firstly, the RIAA must be bitch-slapped. Hard. We need to show them what we do to groups who abuse the court system. No matter how much cause they have to be angry, we need to show them tough justice.

Secondly, all those pirates must also be bitch-slapped. Their contribution to this mess must not go unnoticed and unpunished. We need to make copyright infringement a criminal matter, and institute heavy p

No..., If they win.. everything will as it is right now... It can not get worse than this.

As a general rule that is almost infallible, there is nothing on God's Green Earth that "can't get worse." Maybe the sun exploding and wiping out the planet....that might qualify. Anything short of that, though.....

compared the dwindling resources, food and oil shortages we're facing, the sun exploding would be a mercifully quick end. in reality though, humans have made their bed, and must lie in it.
don't think i'm being self-righteous or anything, i'm no different.
personally, i would rather be vaporized in a massive solar event or by a nuke than have to stick out what's waiting down the road for humankind.

Well, that's not so bad. If it's too terrible to imagine, then you can't imagine it. And if you can't imagine it, you can't brood over it. So, forget about the possibility of all the suffering until you find out what actually shows up.

But I would assume that there's a difference between "can get worse" and "likely will get worse."

You see, the fact that this case is now going forward IS progress. it's taken this long just to get the courts to notice that these evil rat bastards have been exploiting every loophole to keep their campaign going.

They have been using delay tactics for a very long time, trying to make it so inconvenient to continue the fight that we give up. It's nice to see that that is not going to work.

And you can say that if they win, it's over and we lose, but that's not true. This case will likely force people to take notice, and it's very likely that even if the RIAA were to win, they would likely be shut up and shut down by people higher than them, without any laws being passed and without any real paperwork trail.

I think the point is whether they win or lose, RIAA will have to submit to discovery [wikipedia.org], which should have the effect of uncovering all sorts of dirt about their legally questionable [p2pnet.net] methods of finding people to sue.

They also apparently have an army of unlicensed private investigators.

It seems that their tactic was:

1)"illegally enter the hard drives of tens of thousands of private American citizens to look for music recordings stored there". That was MediaSentry's job.

2) Fill "thousands" of anonymous lawsuits, only to subpoena the ISP, and then "discover" the IPs that they already illegaly found. The lawsuit is then discarded, having served it's purpose.

3) Profit, by settling out of court, harrassing and such.

I thought I was pretty well informed on those things, and yet it's the first time I hear about that. It sheds a very new light on the fact that they often couldn't give the proofs. (What I still don't get though, is how they ended suing guys without computers.)

What I still don't get though, is how they ended suing guys without computers.)

You're making the assumption that the RIAA's attorneys care about that. I think it's been demonstrated that their activities center around scaring people away from acquiring music illegally via the Internet, rather than recovering "damages" due to copyright infringement. Suing innocent people just makes the RIAA's lawsuit mill appear even more intimidating.

I think it's been demonstrated that their activities center around scaring people away from acquiring music illegally via the Internet, rather than recovering "damages" due to copyright infringement.

Uh, no.

It's been demonstrated that the recovering of "damages" is their primary goal. They set up a fscking Settlement Support Center [p2pnet.net] as a for-profit corporation to streamline their extortion. If they're just trying to scare people, why do they need a new corporation (which has it's own army of lawyers) to process the payments?

Scaring people is just a happy side-effect. The "settlements" are revenue-generating.

I think you missed my point. Recovering damages for actual copyright infringement is secondary to the goal of trying to reduce the perceived quantity of infringement. Given that they don't care whether or not actual infringement occurred, only that they have the appearance of infringement, indicates that true redress of grievance is simply not the idea. Out-of-court settlements extracted from terrified people that haven't had their day in court aren't damages... they're extortionate. Besides, all those set

They also apparently have an army of unlicensed private investigators.
It seems that their tactic was:
1)"illegally enter the hard drives of tens of thousands of private American citizens to look for music recordings stored there". That was MediaSentry's job.
2) Fill "thousands" of anonymous lawsuits, only to subpoena the ISP, and then "discover" the IPs that they already illegaly found. The lawsuit is then discarded, having served it's purpose.
3) Profit, by settling out of court, harrassing and such.
I thought I was pretty well informed on those things, and yet it's the first time I hear about that. It sheds a very new light on the fact that they often couldn't give the proofs. (What I still don't get though, is how they ended suing guys without computers.)

I wonder about that myself. If I were a judge I would have hit the RIAA's attorneys with Rule 11 sanctions, big time.

After reading/skimming my way through all 109 pages of that, I have a question for you. I noticed many of the allegations made against the defendants look like laws with criminal punishments. Is there any chance (please say yes) that some of the people involved in this legal travesty could face prison time? Preferably somewhere with multiple large cellmates named "Bubba"?

After reading/skimming my way through all 109 pages of that, I have a question for you. I noticed many of the allegations made against the defendants look like laws with criminal punishments. Is there any chance (please say yes) that some of the people involved in this legal travesty could face prison time? Preferably somewhere with multiple large cellmates named "Bubba"?

Yes.

For example, the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth recently pointed out [blogspot.com] that (a) MediaSentry has no license to conduct investigations in Michigan (b) MediaSentry needs a license to conduct investigations in Michigan (c) MediaSentry appears to have been conducting investigations in Michigan and (d) the penalty for conducting investigations without a license in Michigan includes up to 4 years in prison.

Right, I was aware of the illegality of the MediaSentry investigations. I guess I had my eye on the much jucier RICO charges like racketeering that can carry up to 20 year sentences. Any chances a US Attorney could indict on those grounds even after this litigation is settled?

Right, I was aware of the illegality of the MediaSentry investigations. I guess I had my eye on the much jucier RICO charges like racketeering that can carry up to 20 year sentences. Any chances a US Attorney could indict on those grounds even after this litigation is settled?

Sure. They'd have plenty of material to work with. In the Napster case the judge held they could no longer assert attorney-client privilege, under the 'crime-fraud exception', because they'd lied to the US Department of Justice when it was conducting its antitrust investigation of them.

What exactly is it that a license is required to do? That is, is it conducting investigations on the behalf of others for money that requires a license, or is it certain investigative activities that require a license, even if done on one's own behalf?

IANAL, but I believe that the license is required if two criteria are met:

1. You are being paid to perform the investigation.2. The evidence produced by the investigation will be presented in a court of law.

AFAIK, if you are performing an investigation on your own behalf, you are not required to obtain a license of any sort, regardless of what investigative methods you are using (though you are, of course, still liable if you use methods that are inherently illegal).

I have to say that I loved (though I thought it might be just a "bit" over the top) the description of Media Sentry's business. "Defendant MediaSentry is in the business of conducting illegal, flawed and personally invasive private investigations of private citizens in many states throughout the United State..."

Congratulations to the team that put this together. A wonderful document that I'm sure will keep the judge's interest!!

That description is quite consistent with exactly what the Attorney General for the State of Oregon had to say [blogspot.com] about MediaSentry's investigations. Do you think the Attorney General for the State of Oregon is in the habit of saying things that are 'over the top'?

no, from what I have seen most of their attorneys are pretty big flunkies- even though they have the $ to spend it doen't mean that they get the best personell- the thing is that in this case they will be defending- so upon request the burden of producing the discovery in the trial will be on them, which upon request will open the floodgates to a ton of data on tactics, media sentry, coersion and other things to the public that were not previously under public scrutiny except in requests to produce by the

Actually, since I live in NZ, they're not our overlords yet, but we do have the RIANZ down here, who are cut from the same cloth.

In fact, here it's illegal to make any copies of music at all. Hence, until the iTMS arrived, it was a pretty good bet that almost all music on any digital devices was illegally uploaded. Law changes are proposed, and the RIANZ wants to keep the law the same, but they give their word they won't chase the little guy, but want the law to remain the same just in case.

Actually, since I live in NZ, they're not our overlords yet, but we do have the RIANZ down here, who are cut from the same cloth.

In fact, here it's illegal to make any copies of music at all. Hence, until the iTMS arrived, it was a pretty good bet that almost all music on any digital devices was illegally uploaded. Law changes are proposed, and the RIANZ wants to keep the law the same, but they give their word they won't chase the little guy, but want the law to remain the same just in case.

Yup. And judging from the comments that came back from the select committee that reviewed the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers' Rights) Amendment Bill [parliament.nz] last year (I made a submission; hope you did too), there's a huge amount of resistance to changing that. The Bill, if it is ever passed, does include (at the moment) a limited exception for format-shifting audio recordings for personal use, but only audio recordings; even that has met a lot of resistance.

I guess all those videos I've got on my iPod are going to remain forever illegal, then. Politicians seem completely incapable of grasping the idea that it is just dumb to keep somehing illegal when not only is everyone doing it, but everyone is morally right to do it.

For reference, the Green Party is the only party to have opposed the DMCA-like DRM circumvention measures in the bill.

Politicians seem completely incapable of grasping the idea that it is just dumb to keep something illegal when not only is everyone doing it, but everyone is morally right to do it.

That only hold true if the goal of the politician is to serve the people. If the goal of the politician is to have power over the people or to serve someone who wants to have power over the people, then having the majority of the people open to prosecution at your leisure is a very useful tool. Most parking and speeding tickets

Read the last pages of the PDF. There is a request for a public trial. I hope they post the dates and place. I would make the trip to sit in on it and as you suggest, wave goodbye. More important, I want to shake her hand.

In June 2003, the RIAA publicly announced that it would begin a campaign thatwould involve thousands of threats and sham lawsuits against individuals.

It goes on and on like this... plaintiff repeatedly referring to them as sham lawsuits, and in many cases, as above, suggesting that even the defendant acknowledged them as such.

Now don't get me wrong, I think all the lawyers representing RIAA and all principals of the record companies should be in jail (or worse). But this suit reads as inredibly amateurish to me, and if I were the judge I would get pretty irritated by being repeatedly told what to think, rather than the facts of the case.

I suggest you keep reading, the best parts have references. Yes, there are about six or seven pages of introductory opinion but by the time you get to page 7 you start to get into the meat of it. They quote three disgusted Federal judges who use terms like, "gamesmenship", "speculation" and "hammer" to describe the suits. By the time you finish, terms like "sham", "illegal" and "outrageous" sound accurate.

the term "sham" in this context has a specific legal meaning. Basically, the pleading is attempting to state that the lawsuits fail both prongs of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and in order to do that, they have to establish that the suits were, in fact, "shams" within the meaning used in California Motor Transport.
So, it sort of HAD to read that way, is instead of what you think, exactly and precisely professional.
It's just that we're not used to encountering stuff like this.

It's 'way past time we came up with an expression to represent the current situation. Perhaps, "Killing Weasels".

The phrase itself could be something like, "When you're shooting rats near the henhouse, it's inevitable that you're going to hit an occasional weasel." This would cover the RIAA thugs the record companies have hired, as well as the scumbags who actually run the Big Four.

It's 'way past time we came up with an expression to represent the current situation. Perhaps, "Killing Weasels".
The phrase itself could be something like, "When you're shooting rats near the henhouse, it's inevitable that you're going to hit an occasional weasel." This would cover the RIAA thugs the record companies have hired, as well as the scumbags who actually run the Big Four.

As a strong believer in animal rights, I am appalled at your defamation of weasels.

In this case, I think I'll be happy as long as the RIAA gets badly bruised. The only way this could turn out badly is if the class-action lawyers accept a payoff by the RIAA before discovery happens.

Well, if there were a quick settlement which included a consent decree against bringing any more of these stupid cases, and the dropping of the cases that are out there.... that would be okay with me. The main thing in my book is to stop this evil thing.

Nope.The RIAA is just a front company for the media companies.If a judgement were to be made against them financially, one particularly costing millions of dollars, this RIAA would file Chapter 11 and be dissolved.A fresh new RIAA would then arise from same set of people with same tactics.

I imagine this will take twice as long to resolve as the SCO litigation, unless the RIAA lawyers weasel out of it. I hope she is well supported, financially. A few comments that may be interesting for someone.:)

It may be difficult to enforce judgment against the "Big 4" directly. If I understand it correctly, the RIAA operates as a separate entity from them, and unless it is shown that the corporate veil can be pierced [wikipedia.org]. This is typically difficult, though I imagine there is a smoking gun somewhere in the RIAA-Big 4 correspondence that shows that the RIAA is a front.

Class actions are much more difficult to get a judgment on than regular actions. In general (and in essence), for a Judge to feel comfortable ruling on the class, they must be convinced that the issues particular to individuals in the class are not more difficult to figure out than that of the issues in common. The standard typically ranges from "a class action is the best way to resolve the common issues" to "a class action is the best way to resolve the dispute". The latter is significantly more difficult to prove - the Court must be satisfied that the issues specific to each individual do not outweigh the overall issues the members of the putative class have in common (and there is no way cheaper-than-individual-litigation to resolve these individual issues). That's a mouthful, but class actions inherently balance the rights of many people who do not have legal counsel against a defendant with a substantial interest.

The court will also want a very clear and well defined class of people. Because the judgment of the court may preclude people from bringing future actions against the RIAA, there is typically a requirement of notice to the members of the class. This notice typically includes instructions on how to opt out of the class proceeding so that you can bring your own action (for mandatory opt-in jurisdictions; some are optional opt-out). If you fail to opt out within a specified time period, you may be bound to the judgment. In this case, the class is pretty trivial - people who have been wrongly sued.

That leads to an interesting point: Will the members of the class are people who have been wrongly sued, or those who have been wrongly sued and where the RIAA has already lost.

This action is a minefield for nuanced issues, like the above and others. I wish counsel the best. You can rest assured that if the Big 4 defendants perceive any exposure, they are dumping their excess resources into a legal defence.

I am not a Lawyer, but... It sure seems to me that the clearly related actions that associate RIAA & their investigators -with the subsequent lawsuits by one of the Big 4' would make a reasonable case for a -linked conspiracy-. Clearly the actions of the record companies in the actual filing of the lawsuits is not independent/coincidental from the RIAA actions or the actions of the investigators (and it's not clear who those investigators work for. If they're under contract to RIAA and then RIAA tr

maybe someone with more knowledge of the law can comment on the 'burden of proof' to connect RIAA to the record labels, for the sake of punitive actions (damages and maybe even better/worse...)

It's not even an issue, it's an admitted fact that the lawsuits are being run by the record companies' front, the RIAA; the contracts with MediaSentry were signed by the RIAA.. the extortion -- I mean settlement -- checks are made payable to the RIAA client trust fund.

Sure, it'll be good to get this abuse of the legal system sorted, but will it address the key problem? Will it undo the damage already caused to people's lives, to the fair use doctrine?The other question I have is how it will affect the RIAA members, the club the RIAA apparently acts on behalf of. It's not like they didn't know what was going on. If doesn't affect the members they'll be free to set up a new club doing basically the same.

[just for the record]Before you say they're named in the suit, I know. But the record companies will try to weasel out of this one, and I think they stand a fair chance at managing that, unlike the RIAA. That class action suit is art, and the RIAA stands a lot less chance than SCO to drag this one out..

Class action is great but what we really need is a RICO victory that would allow the RIAA and their members to be broken up, their assets returned to artists via a trust, and the future marketing of music and songs using a P2P model that allows for fair use copies and for stores to print physical media for a royality payment.The big fish is the copyright RIAA member organizations put on the CD, Tape or Photograph. It has no artistic merit. It is almost like printing up lables w/ your name on them, sticking

Music is an activity, but the problem is more important than entertainment. If people are not allowed to make and share verbatim copies of electronic media, there can be no public libraries. DRM is not an answer to your problem either. The only way to enforce your way of doing things is so deeply unAmerican that no one is going to accept it. We can not allow third party control of our computers because our computers are also our press. What you are left with is reinterpreting the copyright establishment clause of the constitution in a way that still encourages publication. The simple, American solution is 180 degrees of where you are. If someone else makes money with your work, you can demand your fair share. Everything else should be allowed. A simple system like that will be good for everyone.

I second this proposition. Some people would say that I'm crazy for believing that copyright, in its current form, is hurting society. I say that they're crazy for realizing that supply and demand doesn't affect digital media. Supply is infinite. The prices should then be set accordingly, right? Wrong, We're starting to approach an information overload. The amount of media that exists is growing too quickly for the market to adjust accordingly. Why are we still required to pay fifteen dollars for a CD? The actual product is not worth that much. Do I even need to mention the fact that most CDs have a small collection of good songs on them? It's not the consumer that sets the prices when it comes to copyrighted materials, it's the companies. We currently have two majors oligopolies in this country. The members of the RIAA and the MPAA are what form these. The (please pardon this term) mafiaa are controlling and setting prices in such a way that is detrimental to the circulation of media. It should also be mentioned that very few artists will suffer in the slightest from a situation in which music is freely distributable . I suspect that many artists would benefit from it. Especially the lesser known artists. Has anyone forgotten about concerts? These people are performers. What do performers do best besides, well, perform? I will admit that there are some artists who create in such a manner as to disallow for performances. These would be the only ones I can think of that would be damaged at all by this. Although, these ones could still find jobs in other areas. For instance, making music for various companies that require music for a particular reason. Or perhaps allow the music to be freely downloadable from an ad-based site? Even so, it would help more artists than it would hurt, in the end. Then again, who am I to know these things? It's everyone else that has to see the world like this. So, someone give me a damn good argument. : )

Ok how is this;We will never be able to completely equalized the value of any ART (Music, paintings, photos, dance, etc) to the originators. As long as money is involved there will be greed. The Artists as a CLASS are horribly undervalued for what they do. And no Armani wearing Suit is really going to ever sound credible talking about how much the artists are not getting paid when famous musicians are surfing couches because they didn't see anything out of the record that got them a Grammy. Big Record compa

I have this long post in my head, planned out, talking about "what is a record label?". It's really just a bank, where they loan you money, then dictate how you spend it, and want an insane interest rate. How really, you should pay a recording studio with cash/loaned money if you want to make an album, then just distribute digitally, etc. But, rather than that, I think I'll quote a post I saw. This is from a forum on a torrent tracker that deals in underground punk rock and where posting an album that e

This is why the vast majority of music I have in my collection I bought directly from the bands when i saw them live,and when I was playing music I happily placed our mp3s on the P2P.If people like your music there are a 100 different ways to sell them product.We not only sold t-shirts and cds,but headbands,keychains,etc.The few bands that we played with that got signed ended up broken up after getting royally screwed out of their songs.

The whole POINT of copyrights and patents was a simple trade-we give you a SMALL set amount of time to profit,and in return we the people got a richer public domain and plenty for artists to use as a basis for new works.But now it is so broken that even a 2 second sample of a twenty year old song can get you sued,and the industry expects their great grandchildren to be able to profit from the artists of decades long past. And today's generation is not nearly as stupid as the lawmakers believe-they grew up in the age of technology and can see the hypocrisy and greed of those in power.

Do they REALLY believe that the average kid is going to care about copying a song put out by a bunch that buys politicians and screws the artists every chance they get? My oldest nephew is about as goody goody as they come,but when I asked him about the movie and record companies recently he had a quick answer-"Greedy disgusting pigs".They might as well give it up.Unjust laws will only be tolerated as long as you can get the public to buy into them.Hell even my 67 yr old mom who wouldn't know P2P if it bit her on the butt thinks it is disgusting the way so many companies are screwing folks on music and movies.The recent news story about how the RIAA went and talked to that little girl in her school without her moms consent really had her and grandma steamed.And the kids of my nephews generation by an overwhelming majority see this mess for what it is-another greedy bunch of corporations buying our laws so they can screw the little guy some more.Are they going to lock an entire generation up? But as always my 02c on the subject,YMMV.

Your first paragraph speaks quite loudly. I had forgotten about the other products. T-shirts are a good one. Also, I've purchased CDs at concerts just to have the artist sign it. A good example of this was when I was at the Texas Renaissance Festival. There is a band consisting of one member who plays a carillon. The show was free. He played five or six songs, if I recall properly. It was such an amazing experience that I used what remaining cash I had on hand to purchase two of his albums. Of course, I got him to sign both. I've also seen his CDs in the houses of other people. For the record, his band was named Cast In Bronze. I'm sure there are plenty of other people who have good stories about free music that caused them to purchase something that directly supported the artist.

Also, I rather agree with your idea as to how copyright was originally implemented. It's difficult to profit off of something that is reproducible. At least, it used to be. Copyright law exists to allow artists and creators an amount of time to profit off of their work. This is strange, though. Few researchers continue profiting off of their work throughout their lifetimes. One could argue that researching is an art, though. I might be biased in this regard; but, it seems unfair for one party to be able to continuously profit off of work that they've done once while another party must continue working through their life in order to continue profiting. Don't get me wrong. I understand the idea of investing and profiting off of an investment. Though, one could hardly consider producing art to be an investment. Art is not something that is to be managed. It is something to be distributed. Therein lies the key difference.

An example that might stretch too far for most involves feudal Japan. The Japanese used to view the merchant class as the lowest class in their caste system. The reason being because they profited off of the work of others while doing very little work themselves. This can extend to today's modern band. Certainly, writing songs is difficult. So is learning to play them well. That's not what this is getting at, though. The act of recording an album and profiting off of it for hundreds of thousands of dollars is what I think is wrong. I can't say that I'm capable of respecting any band for profiting off of that. I will, on the other hand, respect them for doing concerts and selling merchandise. They're being paid for tangible products and providing a service. Though, when one purchases an album, they're only purchasing the physical medium coupled with the right to listen to the songs on the album. They've never actually purchased the music.

I am interested to speculate on how the feudal Japanese would have perceived stock brokers and managers. A merchant at least transports goods and makes available several types of goods (usually) at a single location and often in greater quantity than one single producer can provide. But what economical worth does a stock broker have? Those guys make money by moving property around. There is no gain to the activity, yet those guys actually demand to be paid for it. They get money for doing something that giv

If someone else makes money with your work, you can demand your fair share. Everything else should be allowed. A simple system like that will be good for everyone.

Copyright law doesn't (and isn't supposed to) directly prevent others from profiting from your work, it's make sure you're the only supplier of that work. Whether or not a person receives their copy from an illegitimate rival or a P2P network, that's still one less person in your potential market. In fact, P2P is considerably more damaging due to

It's easy to take the moral high ground and say, "Don't rip off music that doesn't belong to you." But it really isn't that simple because it begs the question of when does the music "belong" to us. Some of the more senior among us may have bought a favorite song as a 45 rpm record, as part of an album, as a cassette (and if we hit the timing wrong, on an 8-track tape) and then as a CD album. Do you really think we should now go out an buy another version so that we can listen to the same song as an MP3? Many of us will do that or will make an MP3 from one of the versions we already own but, as I understand it, RIAA believes that even "ripping" an MP3 from one of the many versions we've already bought is "piracy." And, the RIAA is run for the benefit of the same group of companies that are telling the composers and performers that they're not due any royalties because the company mysteriously failed to make any profit from the 4 or 5 versions that we've already purchased.

In many cases, not only do we own legitimately purchased copies on several different media, but the items in question are out of print. The labels are sitting on a treasure trove of musical heritage, and our only access to many artists is through copies ripped by individuals.

The cases you describe are the very small minority; and IMO the only situation in which downloading music is justifiable, simply because you already/have/ paid for it.

Unfortunately, the majority of people doing this are simply in the school of "I want it now and paying anything is too much." In that case, it really/is/ that simple. The music is not being given away by its creators, or by the people who control the rights to it. It is for sale at a fixed price. Therefore any excuse you come up with

I didn't think so. This is business. There's no room for nicities such as ethics, morals, scrupals, or even laws. The RIAA know better than most how the game is played and they'll continue to play it. And win it.

Well, it wouldn't shock me if I read a news report sometime in the near future about Ms. Andersens' or her lawyers' or even the judges' untimely death in some "random" accident or fire, or a "random" drive-by shooting or mugging if things were going badly for the RIAA. It also wouldn't shock me if t